Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42783558›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2026

Aha! Ratings as Metacognitive Judgments.

Jennifer Wiley, Taylor Strickland Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jennifer WileyDepartment of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2590-7392
Taylor Strickland MillerDepartment of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2932-5856

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been an increase in studies using Aha! ratings to explore insight in creative problem solving. Aha! moments are often assumed to serve as a marker for insight-meaning that solutions are achieved via restructuring. However, similar to metacognitive paradigms that collect FOKs (Feelings of Knowing) or JOLs (Judgments of Learning) and JOUs (Judgments of Understanding) to track monitoring of memory, learning, and comprehension processes, Aha! ratings may be better considered as "Judgments of Aha!" or JOAs derived from an inferential process based on a variety of cues. Only some of these may directly reflect underlying problem-solving processes. Using a set of spatial object-move puzzles, this study explored JOAs and how they may vary (or fail to vary) with initial fixation, correct solution, and individual differences in growth mindset. Instead of JOAs being highest for solutions where an initial representation needed to be revised, they were highest for solutions where solvers made a correct first move. This suggests that Aha! experiences are more closely tied to achieving correct solutions than to restructuring processes. Individuals with a stronger growth mindset were more likely to associate these initially correct solutions with Aha! experiences.

Indexed as

Aha!growth mindsetinsightmonitoring judgmentsproblem solvingrestructuring

Identifiers

PMID42783558
PMCPMC13608503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.